At least 8 senators reportedly wore Apple Watches to the impeachment trial, seemingly violating the electronics ban
Electronics are banned from Trump's impeachment hearing. Some senators reportedly flouted this rule, and wore smart watches to the proceedings. Trump is facing two articles of impeachment alleging that he engaged in "high crimes and misdemeanors" to interfere with the 2020 election. Visit Business Insider for more stories.
At least eight senators could be in violation of senate rules during President Trump's impeachment trial, Roll Call reported. According to decorum guidelines given to senators before the trial began, electronics are not allowed in the room at all. The rules read "No use of phones or electronic devices will be allowed in the Chamber. All electronics should be left in the Cloakroom in the storage provided." The rules prohibit tools that senators would typically use to connect with the outside world and share information on social media, although it seems likely that Trump himself will be on Twitter. Sen. John Cornyn, one of the senators who reportedly wore an Apple Watch during the trial, told The Hill last week "We will not have our electronic devices. I just saw a piece of cabinetry in the cloakroom where we will be required to turn over our iPads and our iPhones." Along with Cornyn, Roll Call reported that Sens. Mike Lee, John Thune, Jerry Moran, John Barrasso, Tim Scott, Michael Bennet, and Patty Murray were spotted with smart watches. They also published a photo showing an Apple Watch on Lee's wrist. Sen. Mitch McConnell's aide was also reportedly spotted wearing an Apple Watch. A representative for Sen. Bennet told Business Insider that the senator doesn't own an Apple Watch, and wasn't wearing a smart watch. Representatives for the other senators did not immediately respond to request for comment. Apple Watches and other smartwatches can perform many functions of a smartphone, like text, download apps, and make phone calls. Senators can even tweet from their watches. The rules for the trial do not specify who will enforce them, or what possible repercussions there might be.SEE ALSO: Jeff Bezos' phone was reportedly hacked by Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: How autopilot on an airplane works
More like this (3)
After a historic vote not to call witnesses in Trump's impeachment trial, the Senate is scheduled for a final vote on Wednesday
The Senate reconvened Friday to debate whether to call additional witnesses forward in President Donald Trump's...The Senate reconvened Friday to debate whether to call additional witnesses forward in President Donald Trump's impeachment trial. After several hours of debate, the Senate blocked a measure to call new witnesses, with 49 senators voting for it and 51 against. The schedule for the rest of Trump's impeachment trial is now up in the air as the Senate figures out how to "land the plane," according to one Republican senator. Scroll down to watch the trial and follow Insider's live coverage. Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. The Senate on Friday officially blocked a measure to call additional witnesses in President Donald Trump's impeachment trial. The move came after a contentious debate during which House impeachment managers argued that the Senate has a duty to hear testimony from firsthand witnesses, like former national security adviser John Bolton, who can provide new evidence in Trump's trial. The president's lawyers, meanwhile, argued that the Senate already has enough information from the 17 witnesses who testified in the House's impeachment inquiry. Friday's proceedings came after The New York Times reported on another bombshell claim from Bolton's upcoming book, in which Bolton claims Trump personally asked him to help pressure Ukraine to cave to his personal demands. The House of Representatives impeached Trump last month for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The two articles of impeachment relate to the president's efforts to strong-arm Ukraine to deliver politically motivated investigations targeting his rivals. While doing so, Trump withheld $391 million in military aid to Ukraine and dangled a White House meeting that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky desperately sought and still hasn't gotten. Fifty-one senators need to vote in favor of calling witnesses for the motion to pass. There are currently 45 Democrats, two independents who caucus with Democrats, and 53 Republicans in the Senate. That means four Republican senators need to side with the Democratic caucus for the Senate to call witnesses. In the Republican caucus, only Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine have publicly indicated they would vote in favor of calling witnesses to testify. Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, once considered a possible pro-witness Republican, announced Thursday night that he would not vote in favor of witnesses. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, another closely-watched potential swing vote on the matter, confirmed Friday afternoon that she will also vote against calling more witnesses. Watch the trial below: Scroll down to follow Insider's live coverage of the trial.The Senate voted to reconvene on Monday for closing arguments, senators will get to speak on Tuesday, and a final vote is scheduled for Wednesday. Monday is also the Iowa caucuses (four senators, Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar, and Bennet, are running for president). Tuesday is President Donald Trump's State of the Union address. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer offers up amendments, including attempts to subpoena witnesses and documents. The Senate reconvened on Friday night, as the schedule going forward with the impeachment trial firms up: The Senate will vote on both articles of impeachment on Wednesday. On Friday night, Sen. Schumer offered up several amendments related to subpoenaing documents and witnesses. Ahead of the votes on the amendments, Chief Justice Roberts clarified that he would not break a tie in the Senate, as he is not an elected official. While all four amendments failed, it again put senators on record regarding documents and witnesses. The Senate's impeachment trial schedule is now up in the air Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell motioned for a recess after the vote but didn't indicate what the schedule would look like going forward. "Senators will now confer among ourselves, with the House managers, and with the president's counsel to determine next steps as we prepare to conclude the trial in the coming days," McConnell told reporters. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also said he would meet with Democrats to game out how to move forward. But right now, according to Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, "nobody has any idea" what's going to happen next. "We're still trying to figure out how to land the plane," Republican Sen. John Thune said. Senate votes against calling witnesses in 51-49 vote killing the measure Prosecutors and defense lawyers conclude their debate on witnesses, and a Senate vote on the matter is coming up The Republican-controlled Senate is widely expected to vote against calling new witnesses after two key Republican senators seen as swing votes — Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee — announced they would not vote to have more witnesses testify. In order for the motion to call witnesses to pass, four Republican senators need to defect from their party and join Democrats and two independent senators to reach a 51-vote threshold. But only two Republican senators, Susan Collins and Mitt Romney, have said they will vote in favor of calling new witnesses. Lead House manager Adam Schiff takes a shot at Trump defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz for promoting the 'principle of constitutional lawlessness' Lead House manager Adam Schiff characterized the Trump defense team's argument as implying the president "has a God-given right to abuse his power, and there's nothing you can do about it." "It's the Dershowitz principle of constitutional lawlessness," Schiff said, referring to Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, one of Trump's defense attorneys in the impeachment trial. "That's the end-all argument for them," Schiff added. "You don't need to hear witnesses who will prove the President's misconduct because he has a right to be as corrupt as he chooses under our Constitution. And there's nothing you can do about it." Dershowitz made headlines earlier this week when he argued that Trump's conduct is not impeachable because he believes his re-election is in the public interest. Dershowitz, who has defended controversial figures like OJ Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein, faced harsh blowback afterward from observers who said he was essentially arguing that politicians can do whatever they want to get elected. Dershowitz later claimed he never said what the public heard him say. "I did not say or imply that a candidate could do anything to reassure his reelection, only that seeking help in an election is not necessarily corrupt, citing the Lincoln and Obama examples," he tweeted. "Critics have an obligation to respond to what I said, not to create straw men to attack." Fact check: It's not a straw man. Here are Dershowitz's exact words: "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected — in the public interest — that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment." Trump counsel Patrick Philbin says Trump blocked Congress' impeachment inquiry because he wanted to 'defend the separation of powers' Deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin called the articles of impeachment against Trump "defective on their face." Referring to the second article, which charges Trump with obstruction of Congress, Philbin said the charge "is really trying to say that it's an impeachable offense for the president to defend the separation of powers." "No witnesses are going to say anything that makes any difference to the second article of impeachment," Philbin added. Fact check: The legislative branch is constitutionally tasked with the power to conduct oversight of the executive branch. Trump has not cooperated with a single congressional investigation, including the impeachment inquiry. In addition to issuing a sweeping directive ordering all executive branch officials and six federal agencies from providing any witness testimony or documents in the impeachment investigation, the president and his lawyers have also filed multiple lawsuits to stop congressional committees from obtaining any information about his presidential campaign, taxes, business dealings, or his time in office. Trump's defense lawyers argue that he has "absolute immunity" — a nonexistent legal concept — from not just prosecution but any investigation while he's in office. The president has also falsely asserted that Article 2 of the Constitution gives him the power to "do whatever I want." Trump's lawyers argue he did nothing wrong while urging Senate to vote against witnesses who could provide evidence of Trump's misconduct After House managers wrapped up their remarks, it was Trump's team's turn. Patrick Philbin, the deputy White House counsel and one of the lawyers defending the president, opened his presentation by suggesting it was absurd for the House managers to say a trial cannot be fair or complete without witnesses and documents, "as if it's just that simple." Philbin added that the managers invoked that argument as a "trope ... to disguise the real issues." He went on to say that before addressing the question of witnesses and documents in "any legal system," a court first has to decide if there's "even a triable issue." Fact check: The question of whether there's a "triable issue" has already been addressed. The House of Representatives' move to impeach Trump is akin to handing down a criminal indictment, meaning lawmakers believe the president engaged in impeachable conduct. The Constitution confers upon the Senate the "sole power to try" impeachment cases. It does not specify that the Senate must hold a trial, but current Senate rules indicate that it would. Lead House manager Adam Schiff addresses the Senate: 'You know, as well as we, that there are others you should hear from' Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the lead House impeachment manager and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, closed out his remarks Friday afternoon by saying that a "trial without witnesses is no trial at all." "You know, as well as we, that there are others you should hear from," Schiff said, addressing the Senate. Here are the 4 witnesses Democrats want to call and why each one is relevant Former national security adviser John Bolton Bolton is a key figure in several events at the center of Trump's impeachment. He was at a July 10 meeting during which Gordon Sondland, the US's ambassador to the EU, pushed Ukrainian officials to deliver the political investigations Trump wanted in exchange for a White House meeting for Zelensky. Bolton will reportedly reveal in his upcoming book that Trump directly told him he would withhold Ukraine's aid until the country gave in to his demands for investigations. The former national security adviser also claims Trump asked him during a meeting in May to call Zelensky and push him to meet with Giuliani, who was spearheading Trump's pressure campaign. Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney Bolton claims Mulvaney was present at the May meeting in which Trump asked him to call Zelensky. Mulvaney is also the head of the Office of Management and Budget, which took on a lead role in carrying out Trump's order to freeze Ukraine's aid. Emails and other documents also indicate that Mulvaney was in the loop on Trump's decision to withhold Ukraine's military aid from the start. Mulvaney publicly acknowledged last year that part of the reason the White House froze the security assistance was because Trump wanted Zelensky to investigate a conspiracy theory about Ukrainian election interference that targets the Democratic Party. Robert Blair, an aide to Mulvaney Blair has direct knowledge of Mulvaney's involvement in the Ukraine pressure campaign. The New York Times reported that early on as Trump debated withholding aid, Blair wrote to Mulvaney in an email that the administration should "expect Congress to become unhinged" if the White House tried to pull back spending that was approved in Congress. Michael Duffey, an OMB official Duffey officially ordered the freeze in Ukraine's aid 91 minutes after Trump's phone call with Zelensky on July 25. Duffey wrote that based on "guidance" he had gotten and in "light of the Administration's plan to review assistance to Ukraine … please hold off on any additional DoD obligations of these funds, pending director from that process." House impeachment managers dig in on calling witnesses after Murkowski deals a fatal blow to the motion House manager Val Demings displayed the graphic above as she emphasized that the Senate had called witnesses in every one of the 15 previous impeachment trials in US history. Murkowski explains her decision to vote against calling witnesses: 'Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate' Here's her statement: "I worked for a fair, honest, and transparent process, modeled after the Clinton trial, to provide ample time for both sides to present their cases, ask thoughtful questions, and determine whether we need more. "The House chose to send articles of impeachment that are rushed and flawed. I carefully considered the need for additional witnesses and documents, to cure the shortcomings of its process, but ultimately decided that I will vote against considering motions to subpoena. "Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don't believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed. "It has also become clear some of my colleagues intend to further politicize this process, and drag the Supreme Court into the fray, while attacking the Chief Justice. I will not stand for nor support that effort. We have already degraded this institution for partisan political benefit, and I will not enable those who wish to pull down another. "We are sadly at a low point of division in this country." Here's what Bolton says in his upcoming book According to The Times, Trump asked Bolton during a meeting in May — shortly after Zelensky was elected — to call Zelensky to ensure he would meet with Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer. At the time, Giuliani was planning a trip to Ukraine to push Zelensky to deliver two politically motivated investigations that Trump wanted. The first targeted former Vice President Joe Biden, who had recently launched his 2020 campaign, and his son, Hunter, related to Hunter Biden's employment on the board of the Ukrainian natural-gas company Burisma Holdings. The second was an investigation into a bogus conspiracy theory, pushed by Russia, that suggested Ukraine interfered in the 2016 US election. Bolton claims Giuliani, the acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and the White House counsel Pat Cipollone were present at the meeting when Trump asked him to call Zelensky. Cipollone is currently leading Trump's defense in his Senate impeachment trial, raising the possibility that the president's chief defense lawyer is also now a potential witness to his alleged misconduct.
Day 2 of Q&A phase of Trump impeachmentTrump attorney makes ‘odd’ claim about public interestHelp us...Day 2 of Q&A phase of Trump impeachmentTrump attorney makes ‘odd’ claim about public interestHelp us cover the critical issues of 2020. Consider making a contribution 11.56am GMT The Republican leadership in the Senate is increasingly confident that they have enough votes to block witnesses being called in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, according to Axios. The news site notes the wily tactics of Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell: Sources familiar with the meeting tell Axios that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told his conference that they did not yet have the votes to block witnesses, knowing that the news would likely leak to the media and alarm some senators who dread both a prolonged impeachment trial and Trump’s Twitter wrath. 11.35am GMT Here’s a poster for an upcoming New Hampshire gig by a live act who exhumed styles and ideas thought to be long-dead and suddenly made them seem fresh and exciting again… and Bernie Sanders. pic.twitter.com/jxOiwPlfx8 Continue reading...
The Senate began a marathon 16-hour question-and-answer session on Wednesday. Here are the key moments.
The Senate on Wednesday began a 16-hour period of submitting written questions in President Donald Trump's...The Senate on Wednesday began a 16-hour period of submitting written questions in President Donald Trump's impeachment trial. This comes after six marathon days of opening arguments from House impeachment managers, who act as prosecutors in the trial, and Trump's defense team. The question-and-answer session will be split into two eight-hour days and will likely be pivotal in helping Republican senators decide whether to join Democrats in voting to call additional witnesses to testify. Scroll down to watch the trial and follow Insider's live coverage. Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. On Wednesday, senators began a 16-hour period of submitting written questions to the prosecution and the defense in President Donald Trump's impeachment trial. The question-and-answer period comes after six marathon days of opening arguments from House impeachment managers — who act as prosecutors in the president's trial — and Trump's defense team, led by White House counsel Pat Cipollone and Trump's personal defense attorney Jay Sekulow. After the defense rested its case on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced the 16-hour question period would be spread out over two days, and encouraged Senators to keep their questions "thoughtful" and "brief." The 16 hours during which senators submit their written questions will likely be pivotal ahead of a vote on whether the Senate will call additional witnesses to testify in Trump's trial. That vote is scheduled to take place on Friday. The House of Representatives impeached Trump last month for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Both charges related to his efforts to coerce Ukraine into launching politically motivated investigations targeting former Vice President Joe Biden, a 2020 Democratic frontrunner, his son Hunter, and the Democratic Party as a whole. While doing so, the president withheld $391 million in vital military aid to Ukraine, as well as a White House meeting that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky desperately sought and still hasn't gotten. On Monday and Tuesday, Trump's defense team said the Senate didn't need to subpoena John Bolton, the former national security adviser, to testify in the trial after a leak of his unpublished book manuscript threw a wrench into their defense strategy. The New York Times reported on the manuscript Sunday night, in which Bolton wrote that Trump personally told him he would withhold Ukraine's military aid until Zelensky agreed to deliver politically motivated investigations targeting the Bidens. On Tuesday evening, multiple outlets reported that McConnell emerged from a closed-door meeting with Senate Republicans without the necessary votes to block witnesses. Senators must approve witnesses with a 51-vote majority, meaning four Republicans would need to side with Democrats to call Bolton. Watch the trial below: Scroll down to follow Insider's live coverage:Trump's lawyers refuse to say whether he believes foreign interference in elections is illegal Sen. Chris Coons of Connecticut asked Trump's legal team whether the president believes foreign intervention in US elections is illegal. Here's what Coons' question said: "In June, 2019, President Trump said that if Russia or China offered information on his opponent, 'there's nothing wrong with listening,' and he might not alert the FBI because, 'give me a break, life doesn't work that way.' Does President Trump agree with your statement that foreigners' involvement in American elections is illegal?" Here's what deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin said in response: "I think Congress has specified specific ways in which foreigners cannot be involved in elections. The Department of Justice concluded that there was no such violation here," he argued, "So that is not something that is involved in this case." Democratic senator and 2020 candidate Amy Klobuchar points out that the Senate heard from 26 witnesses, including 17 new ones, in a judge's impeachment trial in 2010 Klobuchar, who represents Minnesota, recounted her time serving on the Senate trial committee during the impeachment of Judge Thomas Porteous in 2010. At the time, the Senate heard from 26 witnesses, including 17 whom the House of Representatives had not heard from. Porteous was ultimately removed from office. "What possible reason could there be for having 26 witnesses in a judicial impeachment trial and hearing none for a president's trial?" Klobuchar asked. Lead House impeachment manager Adam Schiff responded: "There is no difference in terms of the Constitution. I would say that the need for witnesses in the impeachment trial of the president of the United States is a far more compelling circumstance than the impeachment of a judge." According to CNN, Chief Justice John Roberts reviewed senators' questions before the trial and decided he wouldn't read any that could out the whistleblower CNN reported that Roberts told Republican senators after he reviewed the questions that he wouldn't read the name of the whistleblower if it was included in a question submitted for the prosecution or defense. Since Roberts conveyed that message to Republicans, they've reportedly been trying to figure out a way to work around his decision. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was blocked from asking his question because it would reportedly reveal the whistleblower's identity The Republican senator was preparing to ask a question about the origins of the impeachment inquiry but was stopped from doing so to protect the whistleblower, The New York Times reported. Trump lawyer defends his flip-flop on what constitutes an impeachable offense Sen. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, asked Trump defense attorney Alan Dershowitz why he's changed his position on whether an impeachable offense must be an indictable crime. "What has happened in the last 22 years to change the original intent of the framers and the historic meaning of the term 'high crimes and misdemeanors?'" Manchin asked. Dershowitz said that over the last two decades he had "read more," conducted more research, and changed his view on the matter. He now says a president must commit a crime or "criminal-like behavior" in order to be impeached. Trump lawyer can't say whether Trump was interested in the Bidens' involvement in Ukraine before Joe Biden entered the 2020 race Republican senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins asked Trump's lawyers on Wednesday whether the president expressed any concern about corruption relating to the Bidens or Burisma before Joe Biden entered the 2020 race. Trump defense attorney Patrick Philbin couldn't provide any evidence Trump had done so. He argued that he couldn't mention anything that hadn't been submitted by the House into the Senate record, despite there not being any rule governing that. "I'm limited to what's in the record," Philbin said. "I can't point to something in the record that shows President Trump at an earlier time mentioning specifically something related to Joe or Hunter Biden." Republican senator asks Trump's legal team to speculate on whether the whistleblower worked with National Security Council officials to 'take out' Trump "The only knowledge that we have … comes from public reports," deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin said in response. "I gather there is a news report … that suggests a name for the whistleblower, suggests where he worked … at that time while detailed at the NSC staff for then Vice President Biden and that there were others who worked there," he added. "We have no knowledge of that other than what is in those reports and I don't want to get into speculating." Trump lawyers repeat misleading claim that the Trump administration is tougher on Russia, and more of a friend to Ukraine, than Obama was Republican senators on the Armed Services Committee asked Trump's lawyers which of the following two they believed was a greater harm to the US's national interest: Trump's decision to "temporarily pause" Ukraine's aid, which was ultimately delivered, or President Obama's refusal to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine for three years. Deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin responded by highlighting the Trump administration's decision to provide lethal aid to Ukraine after the Obama administration declined to. He added that the move proves Trump is tougher on Russia, and more of a friend to Ukraine, than Obama was, a talking point that many Republican lawmakers have put out. Fact check: It's true that the Obama administration declined to send lethal aid to Ukraine, and that the Trump administration approved it. However, as Insider's John Haltiwanger wrote, under the rules of the sale, the javelin missiles have to be stored in western Ukraine, which is far from the frontlines of the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine against pro-Russia separatists. In other words, the javelins were essentially provided to Ukraine under the condition that they not be used in the conflict zone. GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz draw a bogus comparison between Trump-Biden and Obama-Romney Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz, both of whom are staunch Trump allies, posed a hypothetical scenario to House impeachment managers: In the run-up to the 2012 election, what if then President Barack Obama, who was running for re-election, had evidence that Mitt Romney's son "was being paid $1 million per year by a corrupt Russian company," and that Romney, who was the Republican presidential candidate at the time, had "acted to benefit that company?" "Would Obama have authority to ask that that potential corruption be investigated?" the senators asked. Fact check: This question has a false premise. Cruz and Graham were presumably drawing a hypothetical parallel to former Vice President Joe Biden's demand that Ukraine fire Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor general who had investigated Burisma Holdings, whose board employed Biden's son Hunter until last year. Trump and Republicans claim the elder Biden had Shokin ousted to protect Burisma and his son. But there's no evidence of that. In fact, Biden was representing the US's official policy position — as multiple witnesses in the impeachment inquiry have testified — when he called for Shokin's removal. The US's view was also in line with that of the rest of the western world, as well as the International Monetary Fund. Moreover, Shokin's investigation into Burisma was largely dormant when he was fired. And Yuriy Lutsenko, the prosecutor general who succeeded Shokin, acknowledged last year that he had no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the Bidens. Trump lawyers argue he can set US foreign policy however he wants Trump's defense team argued in response to a question from Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah that the president is the only one who has the power to set US foreign policy. Lee's question appeared to address the crux of the first article of impeachment against Trump, which accuses him of abusing his power by hijacking US foreign policy and using it to cater to his personal interests at the cost of US national security. In response to Lee's question, deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin referenced prior Supreme Court rulings and said they concluded the president is the "sole organ of the nation in foreign affairs." CNN conducted a broad overview of Trump's foreign policy mandate in November. It found that the Constitution is very specific in its outline of presidential powers. The document says the president is the commander-in-chief of the US armed forces and has the power to make treaties and appoint ambassadors. But it doesn't specify any other powers related to foreign policy. Trump defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz makes bizarre claim that Trump's election itself is in the public interest Here's what Dershowitz said: "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment." Fact check: This is a bizarre claim, because it implies Trump's election itself — an inherently political outcome — is in the public interest. Earlier, Dershowitz also laid out a hypothetical scenario in which a Democratic president told Israel he would withhold all aid until the Israeli government stopped all settlement growth, or if he told Palestine he would withhold aid until the Palestinian government stopped "paying terrorists." "And the president said: quid pro quo," Dershowitz added. "If you don't do it, you don't get the money. If you do it, you get the money. There is no one in this chamber that would regard that as in any way unlawful." It's unclear where Dershowitz was going with this line of thinking, because it seems to confirm what House Democrats have argued: while previous US presidents routinely engaged in "quid pro quos" with other nations, they did so in matters of official foreign policy or national interest. But according to witness testimony, documentary evidence, and Trump's and his allies' own comments, the president's efforts to strong-arm Ukraine into delivering investigations that would personally benefit him were not in the US's interest, but rather his personal interests. Here's a clip of the moment: Tweet Embed: //twitter.com/mims/statuses/1222600255369359362?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz: "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment." https://t.co/jKErQcS1Iy pic.twitter.com/zo4rL6Zbla White House deputy counsel Patrick Philbin points to 2 documents that he says prove Trump's interest in European burden-sharing Trump's defense team was asked to respond to Schiff's argument, and deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin made a few points that he said proved Trump's interest in European burden-sharing with respect to Ukraine's military aid. He pointed to two documents: A June 24 email from one Defense Department official to another, titled "POTUS follow-up." The email said, "What do other NATO members spend to support Ukraine?" The White House's summary of a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which showed Trump telling Zelensky: "We spent a lot of effort and a lot of time for Ukraine. Much more than the European countries are doing, and threshold be helping you more than we are." Lead House manager Adam Schiff replays Trump lawyers' own comments to prove why the Senate should subpoena John Bolton As he continued explaining why the Senate needed to hear testimony from Bolton himself, Schiff played several clips of the president's lawyers saying they hadn't gotten all the facts from the House impeachment inquiry. The first clip featured White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who's leading Trump's defense team. "House managers' ... goal should be to give you all the facts," Cipollone said. "Ask yourself, given the facts you heard today that they didn't tell you, who doesn't want to talk about the facts? Impeachment shouldn't be a shell game. They should give you the facts." The second clip featured Cipollone's deputy, Michael Purpura. "And once again, not a single witness in the House record … provided any firsthand evidence that the president ever linked a presidential meeting to any investigations," Purpura said. "Anyone who spoke with the president said that the president made clear that there was no linkage between security assistance and investigations." Purpura's statements were misleading — Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, publicly confirmed that Trump held Ukraine's military aid in part because he wanted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch an investigation looking into a bogus conspiracy theory suggesting Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election. Lead House manager Adam Schiff turns Trump's lawyers' own argument against them Schiff also addressed the first question that GOP Sens. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney asked the president's defense team regarding a scenario in which Trump had several motives, in both his personal interest and the public interest, in withholding Ukraine's military aid. Trump's lawyers said that if Trump had a "mixed motive" in withholding aid, that was even more reason that the House's articles of impeachment were invalid. But Schiff noted that "if any part of the president's motivation was a corrupt motive — it was a causal factor in the action to freeze the aid or withhold the meeting — that is enough to convict him," Schiff said. "It would be enough to convict under criminal law." He added that if senators have any questions about Trump's motivation, however, that "makes it all the more essential to call the man who spoke directly with the president, that the president confided in and said he was holding up this aid because he wanted Ukraine to conduct these political investigations that would help him in the next election." Here, Schiff was referring to Bolton, who claims the president personally told him he would not release Ukraine's aid until the country launched the politically tilted investigations he wanted. "If you have any question about whether it was a fact, the factor, a quarter of the factor, all of the factor, there is a witness a subpoena away who can answer that question," Schiff said. John Bolton looms large over Trump's trial in the wake of his bombshell book revelation Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer asked the following question to House impeachment managers: "John R. Bolton's forthcoming book states that the president wanted to continue withholding $391 million in military aid to Ukraine until Ukraine announced investigations into his top political rival and the debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016 election. Is there a way for the Senate to render a fully informed verdict in this case without hearing the testimony of Bolton, Mulvaney, and the other key eyewitnesses or without seeing the relevant documentary evidence?" Here's what prosecutors said: "The short answer to that question is no," lead House manager Adam Schiff said. There's "no way to have a fair trial without witnesses, especially one who is as plainly relevant" as Bolton. The former national security adviser "goes to the heart of the most serious and egregious of the president's misconduct" and has "volunteered to come and testify." "To turn him away, to look the other way, I think, is deeply at oddes with being an impartial juror," Schiff added. Key Republican Sen. Cory Gardner announces he'll vote against calling new witnesses Gardner, the most vulnerable Senate Republican, was closely watched as being a potential "yes" vote on calling witnesses. He threw cold water on that on Wednesday, telling reporters, "I do not believe we need to hear from an 18th witness." GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Mitt Romney kick off the questioning The first question came from Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Mitt Romney — all of whom are key swing votes in the question of whether to call more witnesses in Trump's trial. The question was posed to the president's defense team. Here's the question: "If President Trump had more than one motive for his alleged conduct, such as the pursuit of personal political advantage, rooting our corruption, and the promotion of national interest, how should the Senate consider more than one motive in its assessment of Article 1?" (The first article of impeachment charges Trump with abuse of power). Here's what Trump's defense said: Deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin took the lead on answering this question and said there were "two layers" to the defense's response. The first is that "abuse of power" in and of itself is not an impeachable offense and is therefore "constitutionally ineffective." The second is that a mixed motive — meaning if the president carried out his actions out of personal interest as well as public interest — "it follows even more clearly" that there cannot "possibly" be a basis for impeaching Trump. Philbin pointed to the House Judiciary Committee's report on Trump's impeachment, which said the standard House Democrats set for themselves was to show the investigations he asked for were "sham" and "bogus" investigations that served no public purpose. But, Philbin said, Democrats themselves discussed the Bidens during the impeachment inquiry, which in the defense's view demonstrated that there was some evidence that Trump was acting in the public or national interest. "And if there's anything that shows a possible public interest motive … that destroys their case," Philbin said. "So once you're into mixed motive land, it's clear that their case failed. It can't possibly be an impeachable offense at all." Chief Justice John Roberts asks that prosecutors and defense lawyers limit answers to questions to five minutes each